first public sitting of the Committee it was suggested by Mr. Hadfield, that a possible, and considering the advanced state of the Session, a not improbable effect of it, might be to give all the evidence to be adduced on behalf of the Local and Secular Schemes, while, by the impending dissolu. tion of Parliament, the evidence of the Voluntaries might be thrown over to a period at all events distant, and perhaps never to arrive. So much weight was attached to this suggestion by the Committee, that they agreed to take en route two principal witnesses of each party, and afterwards, should time permit, any others whom it might be desirable to hear.* Even this plan, however, was not acted on. It having been intimated by the promoters of the Secular Scheme that their witnesses would not be ready so early, the Voluntaries consented to take their place. So that the matter stands practically thus :-—The case of the Locals has been put forward in its strength by the Rev. C. Richson, Mr. Entwisle, and the Dean of Manchester; Mr. Baines and Mr. Adshead have given partial evidence on behalf of the Voluntaries; and the Seculars have not been heard.

Much relating to the Secular Scheme, however, appears in the evidence ; but for the most part it appears only incidentally, and as some members of the Committee plainly favourable to that scheme endeavoured to extract from the witnesses they had to examine concessions adverse to their own views—process under which Mr. Entwisle repeatedly and palpably writhed. Mr. Baines, indeed, was directly questioned on the subject, and gave a very valuable opinion, (1905 to 1911); but as the promoters of this scheme have not yet stated their own case, and as a full investigation of it was repeatedly declined on that ground, we prefer taking no further notice of it here. It will be time enough to do battle with an adversary when we see what ground he has taken, and by what arguments he has fortified it.

Our present business, then, is with the Local scheme exclusively. And we shall most clearly exhibit the large and tangled mass of evidence now before us on this subject, by dividing a review of it into two parts: the first devoted to the grounds of the measure, as stated by Mr. Richson; and the second to the details of the bill in which it is embodied, as explained by Mr. Entwisle.

We have only further to apprise those of our readers who may consult the blue book itself, that they will find in it some serious typographical errors, against the misleading influence of which they will have much need to be on their guard.

The Committee have not recorded this in their proceedings, but we write from personal knowledge of the fact.

PART 1.

THE GROUNDS OF THE LOCAL SCHEME.

CHAPTER I.

THE LOCAL SCHEME PRIMARILY ELEEMOSYNARY.

It appears by the evidence of Mr. Richson (although it was not the first thing he stated), that the object of the local scheme is primarily and strictly eleemosynary. It is avowedly intended to constitute a grand educational charity, securing a gratuitous education to those—the multitudes, as he reckons them—who are unable to pay for it. He opens

this aspect of his case iu the following terms :

Recourse to any public fund whatever for promoting education, will depend upon believing that the parents are really unable to pay for their children's education, or are unable to pay it to any large amount ; because if they are not unable to pay, (speaking for myself) I should not be disposed to advocate a rate, (353).

And near the close of his examination is the following. 638. Mr. W. Miles (10 Mr. Richson). Are the Committee to understand the whole of your system to be laid down upon this principle, that it is necessary to find for the poorer population of Manchester a gratuitous school education ?

Ans.— I think so: conditionally that it does not pauperize the people.

The condition attached to this declaration will, no doubt, attract the attention of our readers, and it will require notice from us hereafter: for the present it is enough to have brought out, in Mr. Richson's own unequivocal language, the eleemosynary character of his scheme. He thus reiterates it

The first consideration with me is whether the people need an effort to be made in this direction at all. If they do not need it, I think we should not proceed any further; therefore, I say in the first place, I would only advocate the giving of assistance out of any public fund, from the conviction that the people needed such public resource to furnish them with education, (358).

The same view is expressly stated by Mr. Entwisle.

769. Mr. Monsell (to Mr Entwisle). Is not the main and principal object of this bill to provide education for the people who are at present so poor as to be unable to pay for admission to the existing schools ?

Ans.-Yes. The scheme is, therefore, undeniably charitable. This eleemosynary character of the bill is in harmony with the account which Mr. Richson gives of its origin. It appears that, in 1847 and 1848, he put forth a paper, with the intention, if possible, of promoting a rate in aid, under the following title, “Suggestions for promoting an increase of

"*

Free Education for the poor, without prejudice to existing institutions, or the agencies now established for promoting education, and independent of the Voluntary System, " The object was,” says Mr. Richson, “to obtain a rate to assist those children who are really destitute.” This paper, although its plan of dealing only with the poor was objected to, was, it seems, "the germ of the present bill,” Mr. Entwisle and Mr. John Peel having kindly performed the obstetric operation to a charitable conception, which had otherwise been unhappily “abandoned,” (2398).

Now, in order to lay the basis for a scheme of educational charity, it was obviously necessary to make out a case, demonstrating in the first place a great educational deficiency in the school district, and in the second its connexion with poverty as its grand and characteristic cause. Of these in their order.

9

CHAPTER II.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION,

The case substantially—we shall not follow Mr. Richson's method of propounding it, which cannot, for any purpose, be considered as well arranged—consists of two parts; the one relating to school accommodation, the other to school attendance; the former exhibiting the amount of educational means provided, the latter the degree in which they are embraced.

It is in the natural order to speak first of school accommodation.

On this very important part of the subject, the statements of Mr. Richson will produce in the friends of popular education both pleasure and surprise. It appears that there is in Manchester and Salford no want of school accommodation, but that, on the contrary, there is a large excess of it beyond the actual demand. In his twentieth table, Mr. Richson shows that there is in public schools surplus school accommodation, estimated at the large allowance of 8 square feet for each child, for no less than 34,443 children ; and he shows afterwards that this surplus school accommodation is so distributed in various localities, and among the several religious denominations with one or another of which they are almost without exception connected, that there is no occasion for any expenditure whatever for the erection of new schools. Such, at least, is his judgment, and (as he assumes) that of the promoters at large of the local scheme. After making allowance for deductions of all kinds from the number stated above, he expresses his general opinion in the following terms:

It is evident that, in making any new effort to increase school attendance, the accommodation already provided in connexion with religious bodies exceeds in amount all that there is any reason to expect the present population can require, even at the lowest estimate that can be fairly made, (118).

To this we add with pleasure, that Mr. Richson does cordial and ample justice to the voluntary zeal and liberality by which, with comparatively trilling aid from the Committee of Council, this large amount of school

* This paper is in the Appendix, No. 8.

accommodation has been provided. “It appears to me,” says he," that the result of voluntary effort in the erection of school buildings is in the highest degree creditable to the liberality, and to the religious character of the inhabitants of Manchester and Salford,” (182); " so that there is no need to introduce into Manchester and Salford any new plan for the erection of school buildings,” (207). He adds, that “any attempt to prevent the future exercise of voluntary liberality for the erection of schools would evidently be objectionable, and cast a needless burthen on some public resource,” (207). Upon this subject it cannot be necessary for us to go further into detail. It is sufficient to observe that, in relation to the supply of school accommodation, a part of the educational process certainly of primary importance, and generally of a very onerous character, the advocates of the local bill have, by their own confession, no case. Indeed, they do not pretend to have any.

Endeavours were made at a subsequent period of the inquiry, to shew that Mr. Richson's reliance upon the sufficiency of the school accommodation was excessive, but without shaking the confidence of either himself or Mr. Entwisle. One of the members of the Committee was inclined to convert the fact of the surplus school-room into a proof of the failure of educational efforts. This attempt was met in the following manner.

1260. Mr. Peto (to Mr. Entwisle).–First let me ask you as to the conclusions drawn by the honourable member for Somersetshire, with regard to the extent of school accommodation. Were not a great number of these schools built previously for Sunday schools ?

Ans.—I cannot say whether they were previously built for Sunday schools, or not.

1262. If they were built more particularly with reference to Sunday schools, it is not a fair argument, is it, to say that the non-use of them (as day schools) to the full extent of the accommodation afforded, shows, in fact, their failure ?

Ans.- No: if the honourable member means this, that the schoolroom has been built capable of containing the whole number of Sunday scholars that could be collected, and those schools are comparatively empty on the week day.

Such is, to a great extent, though not wholly, the origin of the surplus day school accommodation in Manchester.

CHAPTER III.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.

We proceed, then, to consider the evidence adduced in respect of school attendance, a part of the subject on which Mr. Richson evidently expected to come forth triumphantly. We shall see. So far as we are concerned, he shall freely tell his own tale ; we shall not in all cases, however, employ his own figures. It was one of the infelicities of his position that he had on some points to form estimates, to give approximate numbers, and to make laborious inquiries, while full and authentic statements, as yet uupublished, were in the hands of the government. In the course of the inquiry returns were obtained from the Census office, by

which this portion of Mr. Richson's labours has been superseded; and we shall be paying him no disrespect, while we shall be rendering greater justice to the matter before us, if in these particulars we pass his figures entirely by, and use at once those supplied by the Registrar General.

According to the official return (Appendix No. 4, Table 11,) there is in the Manchester and Salford contemplated school district, a gross population of 390,566 persons, and of these 130,603 are children under 15 years of age. Of this number 92,113 are under 3 years of age ; so that the number of children between 3 and 15, (which Mr. Richson assumes as

" the school age,'') is 98,490. The whole number of children under 15 is thus distributed : “ in employment,” 14,660;" scholars,” 44,598 ; "undescribed,” 71,345. To obtain the number of children “undescribed " between 3 and 15, we deduct from 98,490 (the whole number) first, the whole number “ in employment," namely, 14,660; aud secondly, the number of “scholars” between 3 and 15, or 43,964 ; leaving 40,136 as the number of “undescribed ” children between 3 and 15. Let us now deal with these figures as we have them before us, and see how, according to them, education stands in the intended school district.

And first let us observe the ratio of scholars to the population. The population being 390,566, and the scholars 44,598, the children under instruction are ì in 8.75. Now this is a ratio, if not absolutely satisfactory, at all events not greatly to be complained of. It was estimated by Lord Brougham in 1835, (according to a speech of his in the House of Lords) that public education would be in a good condition if 1 in 9 were under instruction ; and a Committee of the House of Commons in 1838, reported their opinion to the House, “ that it is desirable there should be the means of suitable daily education within the reach of the working classes for not less than about one eighth part of the population,” (1580). Here more than one ninth are actually “scholars."

Again, let us observe the ratio of “scholars ” to the entire number of children within Mr. Richson's school age. It has been calculated that the state of public education may be deemed satisfactory, if one half of the children within the school age be under instruction at one time. Now here are 98,490 children between 3 and 15 (the school age now assumed), and 43,964 scholars; a large step at least towards the half, or 49,245. It is highly probable, however, that the number of children under instruction was still larger ; for of children between 3 and 15, 12,721 are returned as "undescribed,” and it is surely unfair to conclude that none of these were scholars : this fact, at all events, is not stated, and on the side of omissions, it is pretty certain that the returns must be to some extent erroneous. Some increase, consequently-let it be what the reader pleases -must be made on this score. But further, if to the number actually returned as scholars you add the number “ in employment," 14,660, you have much more than half, or 58,264 ; and there is a very great probability -it may be said a certainty—that a large proportion of these would be at school if they were not at work; that is to say, there is ground for concluding that there would be under instruction much more than half the whole number of children, but for the peculiar facilities which Manchester and its neighbourhood afford for the profitable labour of the young-a cause for the operation of which, upon any system, large allowance must

The case, therefore, is not very frightful, even allowing the school age which Mr. Richson has assumed to be liable to no question. But an

be made.